Yet for the umpteenth time you fail to give a simple explanation, one you now claim to know. You keep repeating "conspracies" and laughy faces and that link over and over, that might seema bit odd if I didn't already know you were damaged goods. If what you have to say explains the plane thing, I will admit it, 100%
In all seriousness, what would you say to my former colleagues who escaped the North Tower and then watched the plane fly into it? That they are ignorant and don't know what they're talking about? I think they'd consider you either mad or twisted.
I am saying I put no stock in 3rd hand accounts from forum users. If you are offended by that then.. I don't get it You are using emptional shaming, its a woman's tactic ffs
Emotional shaming? What the fact that he personally knows people who were there on the day and watched a plane slam into the tower? You'll dismiss that kind of direct association but swallow every line of the cranks on the net sat in their skids in their Ma's spare room, coming up with utter bullshit about the supposed inconsistencies of the day's events. The CIA supposedly spent millions and roped in thousands into the biggest conspiracy in the history of the World, planes, building collapses et al, and they'd have got away with it if it wasn't for some flute who unraveled the entire plot with the aid of you tube and a Mac
That's a pathetic way to avoid answering the question. Your world must be really small if you can't reach out to someone who was actually there. You seem interested in finding the truth, surely through the six degrees of separation theory (you like theories!) you can connect with an eye witness?! You put no stock in 3rd (actually 2nd) hand accounts from forum users but a lot of stock in speculative accounts by random internet loony tunes. You're off your rocker pal. People like you exacerbate the problem.
I see you are now replying to other posts to someone else to avoid posting the evidence you say you have that explains the plane thing. Oh you also saw this that day on BBC, this is the same BBC World report video, the plane going in this time. Go watch the BBC video yourself, both the magic one wing plane and the magic penetration of the South Tower and survival of the front end until the explosion are all in the BBC video. This is not a photoshop please log in to view this image
Can't you all get back to blaming Muslims or the non Muslim muslims.. Or the non Muslim muslims pretending to be Muslims for the benefit and foreign policy goals of the USA... And calling each other names?
You say you can refute this, then refute it. I created those screenshots I didn't just post a link, are we gettting into the whole "wiki is a valid source on it's own" thing again? Post it, it explains how this BBC report video shows us some cartoon physics and a plane with a disappearedwing. EDIT: It's not a video anomaly. Clearly, when watched in realtime it is not a glitch. The wing is not there. wtf
1) That's your skunk memory feller. You specifically said Bush snr recruited him in the 40's and I said he'd only just got out of the navy - how did he get into such a position of power? 2) You didn't say Bush snr did the legwork for Prescott at all, and you ****ing know it. You said Bush snr recriuted him in the 40's and made, at that stage, no mention of Prescott. 3) A point that both Tobes agreed with, as I remember (I know I certainly did) in the general consensus that US presidents are bought and sold. 4) Astonishing chutzpah from a tinfoil hat. You make whole theories based upon a seeming inconsistency, yet whinge to the heavens if you're asked to get basic facts correct. The fact that you're oblivious to this paradox speaks volumes. 5) Wow, like you're ****ing Clint Eastwood, posting from your safe den in Finland. 6) If a man is accused of stealing a blue brick and is found in possession of a red brick I think it unwise, based on that much evidence, to charge him with stealing a blue brick. Perhaps you have different rules in The Court of Judge Spliffhead. 7) I quoted to you previously about a survivor from the North Tower on a documentary on Discovery who said he saw the AA markings of the plane as it crashed into the tower. You replied that the NSA/CIA must have made him say that, if indeed he'd been there at all. As such, I can't expand the eyewitness argument about 9/11 any more with you as you talk complete gibberish when faced with any counterpoint. 8) Again! For what must be five years now, both on here and in pm's, you just ignore any argument you're presented wit. Do you expect some perfect silohette(sp) back and front when an airline carrying hundreds of tons of aviation fuel crashes into a building of glass and concrete and stell at five hundred knotts? For every 'expert' you push forward, you've been presented with times ten who debunk them. You seem to think this (and Sandy Hook, flouride, global warming, shape-shifting lizards) is a war of attrition, whereby qualitative points (such as getting the ****ing wrong world war) can simply be overwhelmed by quantative cut-and-paste nonsense until you get no reply. Get that dog and go for a walk Sis, You're convincing no-one, not even yourself, if the shrillness and growing hysteria of you posts is to be considered.
You know why i cant stand talking to you, yur bullshit. Your first point is all I could read because the bit in bold you created was followed by this line and you ignored it to make a completely bullshit argument, which is ****in fail. "I did accept you were correct about prescott at that time calling the shots" << miss this did you? You can't even make a balanced argument and as usual, misdirect with ****e, and avoid the salient points. No doubt the rest of that nonsene is just as cack as the first point
Good piece by Jon Snow. http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/paris-attacks-middle-easts-wars-arrive-europe/25934
what's that? I don't like those sites for computer security reasons. I'll link to google images but I don't visit the sites.
I said further up the thread that I'd give them 48 hours to come up with this drivel. In fact, it's less if you go on to some threads on General Chat.
Right... Well flight 175 hit its target at a much higher speed than the first plane. As a result, its body broke up on impact. A jet engine, or parts of were found close by immediately after the plane hit. The reason there is no large exit hole is because the plane didn't travel through the tower the same way it did with the first one. The speed coupled with the flight path explain the reason. In many ways its like how bullets can sometimes pass right through an object and other times, never come out the other side.
It is I agree to an extent, there are glaring omissons in this assessemt of causes and more notably missing players central to this current mess. other than that, decent, I like Snow, he does good work
